The New York Times reports that the Obama administration continues to use the enforcement policies of the Bush administration. "After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administration's tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor."

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Midtown NYC - Attorney for nationally recognized immigration firm specializing in immigration for physicians, scientists, and business professions. Will train but experience with O-1's and EB-1's a plus. Please send resume + writing sample to info@jeffries-law.com.

Case Management Technology
Offering enterprise-level software and unparalleled US-based support, TrackerCorp is the most flexible and dependable immigration management solution on the market today. Designed by immigration attorneys and paralegals, ImmigrationTracker is often praised for its ease of use, intuitive features, and built-in immigration knowledge. As one of our customers noted, "If we had two years and unlimited funds to design our ideal immigration management system, Tracker would be it." Phil Curtis, Chin & Curtis. Find out for yourself why Tracker is the choice of: 83% of practicing Past Presidents of the AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association, through June 2007); 86% of the 25 largest immigration law firms (IndUS Business Journal 2006); 75% of the AmLaw 200 (largest US law firms, American Lawyer Media, 2006); 3x as many globally ranked immigration attorneys as compared with other software vendors (Chambers Global and the International Who's Who of Business Immigration Lawyers, 2007). Schedule your private demo: Call 1-888-466-8757 ext. 278 or email sales@trackercorp.

Readers can share professional announcements (up to 100-words at no charge), email: editor@ilw.com. To announce your event, see here

Submit Your Announcement
If you have a professional announcement such as: New Position, Honors And Awards, Mergers & Acquisitions, New Office Address, New Appointment, New Associate, New Attorney, New Partner, that you wish to share with the Immigration Daily community, send your professional announcement to: editor@ilw.com. comingsNgoings announcements is a free service.

Readers can share comments, email: editor@ilw.com (up to 300-words). Past correspondence is available in our archives

Dear Editor:
I am postponing my ID letter-writing break to mention additional thoughts on how the federal bureaucracy has hijacked the legal immigration system in pursuit of an anti-immigrant agenda. Example #1: Labor Certifications. Everyone knows that the basic premises of this system are absurd, as some recent ID letters have pointed out. But it is the most important employment-based green card that we have. Congress clearly intended that it should work - at least for a fair number of people. But the US Labor Department is doing everything possible to make sure that it doesn't work. When PERM was originally rolled out, the Labor Department said that it was designed to certify cases within a few days. Now, many cases take two years and are subject to a host of restrictive policies that make it virtually unworkable. Anti-immigration bureaucrats should should try to persuade Congress to repeal the law if they don't like labor certifications, instead of trying to do this through the back door by regulation. Example #2: The "updated" J-1 skills list is being misused in order to stop immigration from advanced countries, chiefly in Asia, that have no more of a "brain drain" problem (the original purpose of the skills list) than does the US itself. Example #3 - USCIS is sabotaging the Institution of Higher Education and Non-profit Research Organization exemptions to the H-1B cap. See my next letter.

Roger Algase, Esq.
New York, NY

Dear Editor:
Jim Roberts' letter (08/04/09 ID) is wrong to use my letter (07/31/09 ID) to try to justify his letter's negative attitude toward immigration, which I do not share. My letter simply pointed out that labor certification is a farce. Some of David D Murray's letters have made the same point. The same could be said for some (not all) other work visas. Some of them are based on legal fictions, such as the notion that someone who gets a green card through labor certification plans to stay with the sponsoring company. Nobody believes this. But does this mean that we should cut off or greatly reduce immigration, as Mr. Roberts letter would like us to do? Not at all. It only means that we should find a more realistic way to allow immigrants to come here legally. We might try a realistic point system, together with a less fictitious job offer ! system, as countries like Canada and Australia have done with a good deal of success. But this point system should not be limited to the Einsteins, Isaac Newtons, Andrew Carnegies and John D. Rockefellers among us, as the one that became part of the failed CIR proposal would have done in effect. It should give people who can contribute to our society, both with and without specialized skills, a fair chance, regardless of color. That is the American dream and the American way.

E.S.F.

Dear Editor:
Wishful thinking by ID Comment (08/04/09 ID) and immigration-at-all-costs types?
Janet Napolitano may not be reigning over the empire that she believes she does. All actions taken by her are dependent on a nuisance process called "Congressional Intent". Lady Janet may not be able to abolish the intent of the 287(g) provisions simply because AILA, LULAC, MALDEF, NALEO, gutless local law enforcement "leaders", or illegal alien defenders/supporters demand that she does so.
In a not very widely publicized July 14, 2009 letter to Napolitano, the principal architect of the 287(g) legislation, Senator Chuck Grassley, reminded Janet of the following: "...When it was created, the 287(g) program was meant to help officers arrest and detain all illegal immigrants - not just convicted criminals or serious offenders. There is nothing in the Act that requires that the aliens in question be criminal aliens or be convicted of or arrested for other offenses...". Senator Grassley went on to say that "...I am concerned that the changes being made will weaken our attempts to arrest and detain illegal immigrants in this country, no matter the magnitude of their crime..." Moreover, I believe that under titles 8 and 18 of the U. S. Code persons who entered the U. S. without inspection can be charged as having committed a crime, and not just a "simple administrative violation" as relates to those who are considered to be "visa overstays" or "visa violators"
Therefore, anti-restrictionists, don't get to dancing with too much glee too soon. If Senator Grassley gets his way, Lady Janet may well find herself seeking employment with the likes of Doris Meissner, who also did all she could to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws that she considered to be unappealing to her!

J. E. Smith
Brunswick, GA

Dear Editor:
Regarding ID comment (08/04/09 ID): I commend and admire Sheriff Arpaio for his stance on illegal immigration. He sees the law as it is written and enforces it. Perhaps the federal government should take lessons from this brave American. When being in this country illegally is no longer a deportable offense, then the federal government can ignore immigration enforcement completely. Selective enforcement is not the answer. Being in this country illegally is a lot like being just a little bit pregnant, you either are or you are not! I do not see immigration enforcement any different than drug enforcement. Legalizing drugs doesn't solve the drug problem and legalizing 12 million illegal aliens will not either.
Unfortunately, most 21st century law enforcement managers don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand their ground on this issue as does Sheriff Arpaio.

Mike Riebau

Dear Editor:
Sheriff Joe (08/04/09 ID Comment) is one of the few law officers in the country who actually follows the law when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants. He is a champion. He has more balls than any of our government officialswho refuse to inforce the immigration laws. When 75-80% of the country want illegal immigration stopped and those who are working, living and raping America should be stopped by any means possible. Tent cities may be better than the situation that many of these people came from and if it is not then they should be very glad to return to the country they snuck in from. Why provide big screen TV, exercise rooms and equipment, three squares a day, air conditioning, etc. to those who are not here legally and all that at taxpayers expense. There are many Americans, and especially now that the unemployment is so high, who might like what Sheriff Joe offers the illegal's.
Now ID comment is gloating that his funding will be cut off? Check how many of us support Sheriff Joe before you count him out.

Charlie

Dear Editor:
We, the American people, need more "Sheriff Joes" (08/04/09 ID Comment), not fewer. Most of us do not want our country to become a de facto extention of northern Mexico, demographically or culturally. The only problem with our current immgration laws is that the are not strict enough. We should pattern our laws in this regard after those of Mexico. I mean, isn't it all about "reciprocity"?

Donald Miller

Dear Editor:
Regarding ID comment (08/04/09 ID): Unlawful aliens that break into our country need to be arrested, detained, prosecuted and deported. We either live under laws and the rule of law or your paper falls into the category of 'not important' and unworthy of further purchases by Americans.
Educated nitwits don't get it. We dealing with our country being overwhelmed by another 100 million people in 30 years because of immigration. AZ will turn into a desert ghost town of dried up cities from lack of water.

Frosty Wooldridge

Dear Editor:
I immigrated to the US from South Africa 7 years ago - legally.
Whilst I do not agree with all of Sheriff Arpaio's actions, it amuses me that ID comment (08/04/09 ID) describe these people as "innocent immigrants".
Sir - with respect - I am an immigrant. I went about immigration the long, hard, legal way. The people ID speaks of are not criminals, but they are illegal immigrants. Why call them "innocent immigrants"? Is that not crediting them with something they did not accomplish legally?

Debi Holtzman

Dear Editor:
Regarding ID comment (08/04/09 ID): Sheriff Arpaio seemed to be running the wild wild west out there. Eat up with power. Poor man. Get rid of him, vote him out of office.

Carolyn J. Williams
Houston, TX

An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Send correspondence and articles to editor@ilw.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.